Dataset Information

Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Mindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories.

Objective

To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories.

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines to assess the quality of the included reviews and performed a random effects meta-analysis with main outcome measure Cohen's d. All types of participants were considered.

Results

The search produced 187 reviews: 23 were included, covering 115 unique RCTs and 8,683 unique individuals with various conditions. Compared to wait list control and compared to treatment as usual, MBSR and MBCT significantly improved depressive symptoms (d=0.37; 95%CI 0.28 to 0.45, based on 5 reviews, N=2814), anxiety (d=0.49; 95%CI 0.37 to 0.61, based on 4 reviews, N=2525), stress (d=0.51; 95%CI 0.36 to 0.67, based on 2 reviews, N=1570), quality of life (d=0.39; 95%CI 0.08 to 0.70, based on 2 reviews, N=511) and physical functioning (d=0.27; 95%CI 0.12 to 0.42, based on 3 reviews, N=1015). Limitations include heterogeneity within patient categories, risk of publication bias and limited long-term follow-up in several studies.

Conclusion

The evidence supports the use of MBSR and MBCT to alleviate symptoms, both mental and physical, in the adjunct treatment of cancer, cardiovascular disease, chronic pain, depression, anxiety disorders and in prevention in healthy adults and children.

SUBMITTER: Gotink RA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4400080 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs.

Gotink Rinske A RA Chu Paula P Busschbach Jan J V JJ Benson Herbert H Fricchione Gregory L GL Hunink M G Myriam MG

PloS one 20150416 4

<h4>Background</h4>Mindfulness-based therapies are being used in a wide range of common chronic conditions in both treatment and prevention despite lack of consensus about their effectiveness in different patient categories.<h4>Objective</h4>To systematically review the evidence of effectiveness MBSR and MBCT in different patient categories.<h4>Methods</h4>A systematic review and meta-analysis of systematic reviews of RCTs, using the standardized MBSR or MBCT programs. We used PRISMA guidelines ...[more]

PMID: 25881019

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Previous research has demonstrated the effectiveness of mindfulness interventions in improving glycemic control. By enhancing attention control, emotion regulation, and self-awareness, mindfulness shows promise in managing the lifestyle factors associated with cardiovascular disease risk. However, the impact of mindfulness on glycemic control in people with diabetes remains unclear. This overview aims to summarize the current evidence of the impact of mindfulness interventions on glycemic control in people with diabetes and propose suggestions for future research. Methods: The author searched electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) to identify relevant systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The current evidence regarding the effects of mindfulness on glycemic control in people with diabetes was summarized. Results: This review evaluated a total of five systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Mindfulness interventions show potential for improving glycemic control as measured by hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) levels, as well as reducing stress, depression, and anxiety in people with diabetes. Four out of five systematic reviews and meta-analyses reported a significant reduction in HbA1c levels by approximately 0.3%. However, the available studies lacked adequate description of key characteristics of study subjects, such as body mass index, medication, and disease conditions, which are essential for assessing the impact of mindfulness on glycemic control. Moreover, there was significant heterogeneity in the intervention methods employed across the included RCTs. Conclusions: Mindfulness interventions are effective in improving glycemic control in people with type 2 diabetes. However, the overall quality of the reviewed studies raises uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of mindfulness as a treatment for people with diabetes. Further research is necessary to elucidate the biological effects of mindfulness on physiological, neurological, and endocrinological functions in humans.

Project description:Objectives Positive effects of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) on occupational health have been demonstrated by several systematic review studies during the last two decades. So far, existing reviews excluded mindfulness-informed interventions (MIIs) that build on informal approaches or mixed techniques aiming at improving mindfulness indirectly. To address this research gap, the present comprehensive meta-analysis synthesizes the results of RCTs of MBIs and MIIs conducted in various workplace settings. Method A systematic literature search was conducted in five electronic databases complemented by manual search. Random-effects models were used to synthesize standardized mean differences (SMDs) for 25 outcomes and seven overarching categories of outcomes, and to detect various temporal effects. Meta-regressions were run to elucidate average SMDs between mindfulness intervention types and intervention and population characteristics, with the goal of detecting sources of heterogeneity and help guide the selection of the most appropriate mindfulness intervention type. Results Based on 91 eligible studies (from 92 publications), including 4927 participants and 4448 controls, the synthesis shows that MBIs and MIIs significantly improve mindfulness (SMD = 0.43; 95%-CI [0.33;0.52]), well-being (SMD = 0.63; 95%-CI [0.34;0.93]), mental health (SMD = 0.67; 95%-CI [0.48;0.86]), stress (SMD = 0.72; 95%-CI [0.54;0.90]), resilience (SMD = 1.06; 95%-CI [−0.22;2.34]), physical health (SMD = 0.45; 95%-CI [0.32;0.59]), and work-related factors (SMD = 0.62; 95%-CI [0.14;1.10]). Sensitivity analyses demonstrate a tendency towards smaller effect sizes due to extreme outliers. Effect sizes are stable in short-term follow-up assessments (1-12 weeks) for most outcomes, but not for long-term follow-up assessments (13-52 weeks). Meta-regressions suggest that observable intervention characteristics (e.g., online delivery) and population characteristics (e.g., age of participants), as well as study quality, do not explain the prevalence of heterogeneity in effect sizes. Conclusions Generally effective, mindfulness interventions are a useful tool to enhance aspects of employee health. However, because of heterogeneity and risk of bias, studies aiming at high-quality data collection and thorough reporting are necessary to draw firm conclusions. Preregistration A protocol of this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO (Registration-No. CRD42020159927). Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12671-023-02130-7.

Project description:BackgroundMyopia is a common visual disorder with increasing prevalence among developed countries of the world. Myopia constitutes a substantial risk factor for several ocular conditions that can lead to blindness. The purpose of this study is to conduct an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in order to identify and appraise robust research evidence regarding the management of myopia progression in children and adolescents.MethodsA literature search will be conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE), and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Database via Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). We will search for systematic reviews or meta-analyses that examine optical or pharmaceutical modalities for myopia control. Two independent overview authors will screen the titles and abstracts against the eligibility criteria. Individual study's methodological quality and quality of evidence for each outcome of interest will be assessed by two independent authors using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating, respectively. In cases of disagreement, consensus will be reached with the help of a third author. Our primary outcomes will be the mean change in refractive error, mean axial length change, and adverse events. A citation matrix will be generated, and the corrected covered area (CCA) will be estimated, in order to identify overlapping primary studies. Possible meta-biases and measures of heterogeneity will be described, and cases of dual co-authorship will be identified and discussed. If any recently published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are detected, these will be appraised and their findings will be presented. An overall summary of outcomes will be provided using descriptive statistics and will be supplemented by narrative synthesis.DiscussionThis overview will examine the high level of existing evidence for treatment of myopia progression. Efficient interventions will be identified, and side effects will be reported. The expected benefit is that all robust recent research evidence will be compiled in a single study. The results may inform future research in this area, which should provide insight into the appropriate regimes for the administration of these modalities and contribute to future guideline development.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017068204.

Project description:BackgroundMyopia is a common visual disorder with increasing prevalence. Halting progression of myopia is critical, as high myopia can be complicated by a number of vision-compromising conditions.MethodsLiterature search was conducted in the following databases: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR), Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses investigating the efficacy and safety of multiple myopia interventions vs control conditions, were considered. Methodological quality and quality of evidence of eligible studies were assessed using the ROBIS tool and GRADE rating. The degree of overlapping of index publications in the eligible reviews was calculated with the corrected covered area (CCA).ResultsForty-four unique primary studies contained in 18 eligible reviews and involving 6400 children were included in the analysis. CCA was estimated as 6.2% and thus considered moderate. Results demonstrated the superior efficacy of atropine eyedrops; 1% atropine vs placebo (change in refraction: -0.78D, [- 1.30 to - 0.25] in 1 year), 0.025 to 0.05% atropine vs control (change in refraction: -0.51D, [- 0.60 to - 0.41] in 1 year), 0.01% atropine vs control (change in refraction: -0.50D, [- 0.76 to - 0.24] in 1 year). Atropine was followed by orthokeratology (axial elongation: - 0.19 mm, [- 0.21 to - 0.16] in 1 year) and novel multifocal soft contact lenses (change in refraction: -0.15D, [- 0.27 to - 0.03] in 1 year). As regards adverse events, 1% atropine induced blurred near vision (odds ratio [OR] 9.47, [1.17 to 76.78]) and hypersensitivity reactions (OR 8.91, [1.04 to 76.03]).ConclusionsExisting evidence has failed to convince doctors to uniformly embrace treatments for myopic progression control, possibly due to existence of some heterogeneity, reporting of side effects and lack of long-term follow-up. Research geared towards efficient interventions is still necessary.

Project description:ObjectivesWe assessed the evidence from reviews and meta-analyses of randomised clinical trials on the effects of pharmacological prevention and management of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients.MethodsWe searched for reviews in July 2017 in: Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, Embase, Science Citation Index, BIOSIS Previews, CINAHL and LILACS. We assessed whether reviews were systematic according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and assessed the methodological quality using ROBIS.Outcome measuresPrimary outcomes: all-cause mortality, serious adverse events, prevention of delirium and management of delirium.Secondary outcomesquality of life; non-serious adverse events and cognitive function.ResultsWe included 378 reviews: 369 narrative reviews, eight semisystematic reviews which failed on a maximum of two arbitrary PRISMA criteria and one systematic review fulfilling all 27 PRISMA criteria. For the prevention of delirium, we identified the one systematic review and eight semisystematic reviews all assessing the effects of alpha-2-agonists. None found evidence of a reduction of mortality (systematic review RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.79 to 1.24). The systematic review and three semisystematic reviews found no evidence of an effect for the prevention of delirium (systematic review RR 0.85, 0.63 to 1.14). Conversely, four semisystematic reviews found a beneficial effect. Serious adverse events, quality of life, non-serious adverse events and cognitive function were not assessed. We did not identify any systematic or semisystematic reviews addressing other pharmacological interventions for the prevention of delirium. For the management of manifest delirium, we did not identify any systematic or semisystematic review assessing any pharmacological agents.ConclusionBased on systematic reviews, the evidence for the use of pharmacological interventions for prevention or management of delirium is poor or sparse. A systematic review with low risk of bias assessing the effects of pharmacological prevention of delirium and management of manifest delirium in ICU patients is urgently needed.Prospero registration numberCRD42016046628.

Dataset Information

Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Standardised mindfulness-based interventions in healthcare: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of RCTs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets